China yearns for peace on southern flank with India -AsiaTimes

This article gives a good Chinese perspective on how the hardball diplomacy on the stapled visas issues led China to backtrack on the idea of issuing stapled visas and trying to rake up the border issues. Interesting analysis on GoI External Affairs ministry at work.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MD22Ad01.htmlPeter Lee
Beijing embarked on a well-received charm offensive at the BRICS summit at the city of Sanya on China's Hainan Island. Chinese President Hu Jintao and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met on April 13 in a sidebar of the gathering of leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa for a mini-reset of the oft-contentious relations between the two regional powers. [1]

China is obviously eager to repair some of the PR damage from the pummeling it took as the designated neighborhood bully on Diaoyutai Island, rare earths and South China Sea dust-ups.

But it also looks like the People's Republic of China (PRC) yearns for stability on its borders - and in the Tibetan Autonomous Region - as it nervously eyes the wave of popular protests sweeping the Middle East. Particularly in Syria, there is distinct - though vociferously denied - evidence that Bashar al-Assad's external enemies, both exiles and foreigners - are taking advantage of the unrest and the regime's faltering and brutal response to stoke violence, spread disinformation, and put the boot in on a hated foe. [2]

If and when popular unrest comes to China, Beijing would appreciate New Delhi's forbearance in making sure that its domestic political problems are not exacerbated by snowballing unrest in Tibet, fed by emigre agitation and the temptation of geopolitical competitors to meddle at China's expense.

The most significant Chinese concession at the Hainan forum was China's reported (in the Indian press) backpedalling on the arcane issue of stapled visas for residents of Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh.

The Chinese practice of stapling a piece of paper with a visa in a passport (instead of stamping it directly in the book) for some residents of Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh seeking to visit China dates at least to 2007.

It apparently was part of a Chinese campaign to formalize its position on the festering border conflicts between India and China by demonstrating in concrete form China's position that the status of these territories was disputed and not subject to the normal consular relations between the two countries.

India's stated posture has always been to refer the Sino-Indian border debate to the McMahon Line. The drawing of the McMahon Line was a bit of British mischief that shaved off parts of Tibet and present-day Pakistan, and included them in British India in order to create buffer zones.

Negotiated at the Indian town of Simla in 1914, the McMahon Line was apparently an egregious exercise in imperial cartography, defining the border only with a thick red line on a map without reference to the usual local landmarks employed to demarcate a border.

The negotiation of the Simla Accord gives a certain amount of aid and comfort to advocates of Tibetan independence because Sir Henry McMahon allegedly exceeded his instructions and concluded a deal with the Tibetan representatives after the Republic of China envoy left the talks.

By accepting the McMahon Line, the Tibetan team gave away a piece of territory in return for the transitory pleasure of negotiating directly with the British Empire. Having obtained the border deal it wanted, the British government occasionally but emptily asserted its right to deal with Tibet directly. However, in 2008, a British Foreign Office statement officially repudiated the implication of Tibetan independence contained in the Simla Accord.

No Chinese government has accepted the McMahon Line as the proper demarcation of the border. India, however, has embraced it.
Today, China occupies a fair amount of wasteland known as Aksai Chin in northern Kashmir that holds a strategic railroad linking Xinjiang and Tibet - claimed by India - and India occupies largely ethnic-Tibetan mountainland south of the McMahon Line in the northeastern province of Arunachal Pradesh - claimed by China.

Much is made of the militarization of the border as a source of tensions, but it is possible that the opposite is true. As the border regions on opposite sides of the Line of Actual Control are integrated by new roads and railroads and secured by mobile, better-equipped military forces, the incentive to meddle across the border is reduced.

Belligerent posturing is, of course, another matter.

Indian recalcitrance seems to have something to do with assuaging the military establishment's still-burning resentment over getting thumped in the 1962 border war - which was fought largely in Arunachal Pradesh - and the popularity of sticking it to Beijing as a national pride/electoral strategy. The fattening of defense budgets on the Indian side in response to the perceived Chinese threat is also, of course, not unwelcome.

The logical solution to this issue would seem to be an exchange of claims on these marginal lands - China keeps Aksai Chin and India holds on to Arunachal Pradesh. But it hasn't happened yet, despite the creation of resolution mechanisms and over a dozen meetings in recent years.

The whys and wherefores have ignited entertaining and informative Internet flame wars between Indian, Chinese, and Tibetan advocates. [3]

However, a close look at the evidence appears to indicate that China has put an Aksai Chin for Arunachal Pradesh swap on the table for years - starting with Zhou Enlai in the 1950s - but the Indian government has found it in its interests to insist that the fate of the two regions be negotiated separately.

As India formalized its control over Arunachal Pradesh - it is now incorporated as an Indian state and not a border territory - the prospect of swapping recognition of Aksai Chin has become more remote. Instead, it became possible that India would simply hold on to Arunachal Pradesh and not bother to acknowledge the Chinese claim over Aksai Chin at all.

It appears that in 2010 the Chinese government was feeling its oats and decided it would try to play the separate negotiations game, too. If India insisted on discussing the problems separately, then China would try to get some two-on-one action on the Aksai Chin by pushing for India to talk with Pakistan on the overall Jammu & Kashmir issue.

China's search for alternate leverage led it to escalate its claims to both Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh by harping on the ongoing visa issue.

In July 2010, the Chinese government apparently attempted to issue a stapled visa to Lt Gen B S Jaswal, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Kashmir-based Northern Command, although it had given him a stamped visa in 2008. This emerged from the journalistic sausage-making machine as "China refuses visa to Indian general", and resulted in the breakdown in the high-level military exchanges between the two countries. [4]

In addition to the stapled visa shenanigans, China infuriated the Indian government by trying to interfere in Asian Development Bank deliberations on a US$2.9 billion Indian hydropower finance package because it included a $60 million Arunachal Pradesh component.

China also staked a claim to Tawang, a small market town of inordinate importance in Arunachal Pradesh because it was the birthplace of the sixth Dalai Lama and the place where the 14th Dalai Lama found Indian refuge after fleeing Lhasa in 1959. Tawang also hosts a large Gelugpa monastery that is reputedly the second-largest such installation in the world after Lhasa and enjoys the active patronage of the Dalai Lama.

In response, India rolled out the big guns.

Manmohan Singh made a high-profile visit to Arunachal Pradesh in October 2010 during the parliamentary election campaign, eliciting much unhappiness from the Chinese government. In November 2009, the Indian government allowed the Dalai Lama to make a rare visit to Arunachal Pradesh, and also to Tawang.

In an apparent recapitulation of the Tibetan delegation's sellout to the British at Simla in 1914, the Indian media reported that the Dalai Lama declared that Arunachal Pradesh and Tawang were "part of India".

The reference to Tawang is particularly striking because the Tibetan government, in its pre-exile days, had made repeated and intermittently successful efforts to maintain administrative control of Tawang, despite its location south of the McMahon Line.

In 1947, the Tibetan government wrote the Indian government to assert Tibetan authority over Tawang. But in 1950-51, the Indian government moved into the region and, from a facts-on-the-ground standpoint, settled the question of who ran Tawang for once and for all. [5]

The Tibetan government-in-exile has historically accepted the McMahon Line - and the loss of what the Chinese call "South Tibet" - as the cost of doing business with the Indian government. It was, however, somewhat jarring for the Dalai Lama to accept India's control of Tawang instead of asserting its fundamental Tibetaness.

According to the Times of India, the Dalai Lama did so in categorical terms:

"My stand that Tawang is an integral part of India has not changed," the Dalai Lama said in defense of his host country. [6]

However, another outlet reported the Dalai Lama's position as being somewhat more nuanced. Instead of tackling the Tawang question head-on, he hypothesized that the Chinese pullback from Tawang after the People's Liberation Army occupied the town in the 1962 border war - meant to re-establish the ante-bellum status quo as a prelude to negotiations with India - implied that Beijing had surrendered its right to contest Tawang's nationality:

If China claimed Tawang, then the army should not have left. The Dalai Lama hinted that China's current claims are an afterthought. "The then Chinese government declared a unilateral ceasefire and withdrew [its forces]. Now the Chinese have got different views. This is something which I really don't know. I am little bit surprised," he said. [7]

Click to expand...

In any event, the Dalai Lama's visit and his remarks as reported did send a useful message to China that restoring the territorial integrity of the Tibetan homeland by clumping parts of Arunachal Pradesh into the Tibetan Autonomous Region enjoyed no support from the Tibetan diaspora and was useless as a negotiating point.

Meanwhile, Pakistan, hopelessly transfixed on the cleft stick of its Afghanistan/Taliban/US war on terror disaster, showed itself uninterested in adding to its headaches by arguing with India over Kashmir. Therefore, China's attempts to match India's "separate negotiations" stance on Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh were going nowhere.

At Hainan, the Chinese government appeared more willing to resign itself to the current border muddle, while tending to more important elements of its relationship with India: trade and security issues.

Calls for democracy in the Middle East have been unremitting, and the Chinese government is apparently acting pre-emptively on the assumption that something similar may break out in China. Activists, dissidents, and lawyers have been detained by the bushel-basket, and Internet censors are working overtime.

Although the examples of Egypt and Libya have demonstrated that negotiated forbearance between the Western democracies and authoritarian governments can evaporate almost instantaneously as popular unrest manifests itself, it appears that China decided this is not the time to be at loggerheads with India.

Therefore, four Kashmiri Indian journalists - of whom at least one had a passport issued in Kashmir and not New Delhi - were given conventional visas to go to Hainan, apparently giving rise to the report that China was moderating its stance on the "stapled visa" issue.

The Hindustan Times, reporting from the China-bashing quadrant, received a self-congratulatory background briefing from someone in the Indian government that made the case that the switch in policy was evidence of Chinese incompetence:

Indian officials are smiling like Cheshire cats as China quietly pulls back on a Kashmiri policy that roiled relations the past two years ... Today, Indian officials are coming around to the view that the Kashmir shift and unshift was really evidence of incoherence within the Chinese system. "Beijing is struggling to handle the demands of an increasingly demanding world," said one. China, superpower in the making, was more stumbling than sinister. ...

New Delhi, after a careful review of the information, has concluded the two Kashmiri moves arose from decisions at lower level bureaucrats designed to placate a weakening Pakistan. Little or no thought was given about the consequences. Worse, organizations like the Chinese foreign ministry who would have known better were out of the loop. Thus the Northern Command decision was taken by a low-level national ministry of defense. "May be the clerk had something against the Northern Command," said one official.

What there is no doubt about is that China was completely taken aback at the strength of Indian response. The Chinese, say sources, may have concluded the Kashmir policy would not be a big deal given India's track record of keeping quiet on many other issues with China.

Having made a blunder, the problem say Indian officials was that "Beijing didn't know how to walk it back."

Initial Indian complaints bounced off China. The real game-changer was when, at a foreign secretaries meeting in Sichuan last year, India hinted it would change its Tibet and Taiwan policies. India declined to endorse the one China policy when Premier Wen Jiabao came visiting in December last year. [8]

Click to expand...

This allegation of Chinese disorganization and ineptitude may be gratifying to the Indian diplomatic service, which often faces accusations of disorganization and ineptitude itself.

However, the facts of the case - that stapled visas were given to weightlifters from Arunachal Pradesh trying to attend a competition in China (indeed, stapled visas were given to residents of Arunachal Pradesh as early as 2007) as well demanded for a general from Jammu & Kashmir - implies that more than purported resentment against "Northern Command" by a disgruntled clerk in the Chinese Ministry of Defense was at work.

And the intimidating character of India's representations to Premier Wen in December 2010 apparently did not deter China from issuing stapled visas to the two weightlifters in January 2011, less than a month after Wen's visit.

As the Economic Times put it:

In spite of Premier Wen Jiabao's assurance that China will take serious note of India's concerns over the issue of stapled visas, the handing over of such documents to two Arunchalis prevented them from flying to Beijing on Wednesday. [9]

Click to expand...

Perhaps the purpose of this backgrounder is to make the case that the stapled visa issue was merely a blunder and China's change of posture therefore did not merit any reciprocation from India.

Also, the concession was framed in terms of Jammu & Kashmir alone - not addressing any Arunachal Pradesh factor - indicating that the Indian government was happy to advertise that China was backing off on interfering in Kashmir just as New Delhi and Srinigar brace themselves for the possibility of another long, hot summer of rock throwing, head cracking, and the intemperate use of various lethal and occasionally lethal non-lethal ordinance by Indian security forces in Kashmir.

However, if India helps keep a lid on dissent, criticism, and incitement in the southwest as China nervously enters its own season of dissent, with those warm, dry days and nights so well suited to marching, camping, and other activities, enduring some self-congratulatory preening by India - and the erosion of China's bargaining stance on the contentious border issues - might be an acceptable price to pay.

PRC should simply return Shaksgam Valley and Aksai Chin back to India and there shall be eternal peace.

Click to expand...

Simply return? You are dreaming!
There is no Chinese gov will return these areas to india without a fight!
You want these territories? Cross thousands of Chinese soldiers bodies and prepare same amount of bags for your indian soldiers bodies. If you are lucky enough to win this blood war, China will return them. But if you want to get them back by talking, never!

Simply return? You are dreaming!
There is no Chinese gov will return these areas to india without a fight!
You want these territories? Cross thousands of Chinese soldiers bodies and prepare same amount of bags for your indian soldiers bodies. If you are lucky enough to win this blood war, China will return them. But if you want to get them back by talking, never!

Click to expand...

Pragmatic response.

Of course, PRC is not going to give it up without a fight. Neither did we gain Kashmir without a fight, nor the independence of Bangladesh. We are not dreaming. Whosoever made that comment 'China yearns for peace on southern flank with India' is dreaming. There can be no peace unless those territories are returned. Right now, it is a stalemate. India must continue to bolster her armed forces and take it back from PRC at the opportune moment, with a fight so punitive that PRC remembers that for a long long time.

China has put an Aksai Chin for Arunachal Pradesh swap on the table for years - starting with Zhou Enlai in the 1950s - but the Indian government has found it in its interests to insist that the fate of the two regions be negotiated separately

Click to expand...

Such a proposal of "swap" put China at a disadvantage. Fortunately the 'deal' didn't come true. What China shall do is just maintain a cold peace along the LOC without any more concession. Frankly I don't see how China can woo India without risking the time-tested friendship of PK (it's like a yoyo) who's strategically important. Most recently CIGS of PK even mentions the role PK can play for China's "Blue Water Navy" aspiration.

might help India in the long run. Politically dangerous, but the trumph card

Click to expand...

A trump card i.e. Dalai Lama/Tibetan? As time swifts by things are very different now. A Wikileak cable for your ref. US government outlines 'dilemma' in event of Iraqi crackdown on Iranian dissidents. It's about how a 'trump card' (Iranian dissident org. MEK housed in Iraq in this instance) got soured.

Simply return? You are dreaming!
There is no Chinese gov will return these areas to india without a fight!
You want these territories? Cross thousands of Chinese soldiers bodies and prepare same amount of bags for your indian soldiers bodies. If you are lucky enough to win this blood war, China will return them. But if you want to get them back by talking, never!

Click to expand...

Both the territories are not Chinese in the first place.

Aksai Chin is Indian and so is the Shaksgam Valley (which has been illegally donated by Pakistan to China, when in the first place it was not Pakistan's).

It is true that talks will not solve the problem, more so, since China has abandoned its 'Peaceful Rise' and transmogrified it in to an 'Aggressive Rise' where she is threaten all countries, which in her opinion, is preventing her acquiring territory and seas at will.

The only way India can have the return of the territories is through promoting insurrection within the Autonomous Regions and if India is clever enough, to allow the US to do the same instead of India taking the lead role.

It is feasible to encourage insurrection since ethnically the Uyghurs and the Tibetans are not Hans and are more so, the Uyghurs being Muslims, will not be amenable to having their religion trampled upon.

Such a proposal of "swap" put China at a disadvantage. Fortunately the 'deal' didn't come true. What China shall do is just maintain a cold peace along the LOC without any more concession. Frankly I can't see how China can woo India without risking the time-tested friendship of PK (it's like a yoyo) who's strategically important. Most recently CIGS of PK even mentions the role PK can play for China's "Blue Navy" ambition.

A trump card i.e. Dalai Lama/Tibetan? As time swifts by things are very different now. A Wikileak cable for your ref. US government outlines 'dilemma' in event of Iraqi crackdown on Iranian dissidents. It's about how a 'trump card' (Iranian dissident org. MEK housed in Iraq in this instance) got soured.

Click to expand...

It is correct that any change from the status quo will be of serious disadvantage to China, not only strategically, but also losing out on hydropower, oil and minerals, all of which is at a premium for the development of China.

Therefore, it is wishful thinking that China is on any peace initiative in these region.

However, the feasibility of insurrection in East Turkmenistan (Xinjiang) and Tibet is not that much of a kiteflying effort.

One has to understand the Muslim mindset. It is not very peaceful or subservient when it comes to their religion. That is why it is important for China to keep Pakistan at bay with sops and calls of eternal friendship. However, the same is not applicable with others. China is aware of it and that is why it will be observed that China is on a powerdrive to keep all Muslim countries in good cheer.

While the US may not be able to make headway in Iran, there is no obstacles to make headway in Xinjaing since it will not be against the Muslim cause and no Muslim nation will not want the 'liberation' of another set of Muslims from the stranglehold of kaffirs.

However, if China attempts to upset the Uyghurs with reprisals, then the mood of the Muslim nations can change, to China's disadvantage.

The Tibetan on the other hand is restrained by the Dalai Lama and the Indian Govt. However, the younger generation are very aggressive and are conscious of their rights. The manner in which they reacted to the alleged foreign exchange loot of the Karmapa is indicative of their restiveness and assertive spirit.

Once the Dalia Lama is no more, things can get ugly and it is dangerous not only for China, but also for India.

Some tweets by IDSA. There was a low profile IDSA-CICIR dialouge (Chinese counterpart of IDSA) a couple of days back. It does indicate that China wants to at least for now befriend India. They tried the hard line approach from 2009-2010, but the behind the scenes hardball seems to have made China rethink and adopt a more pragmatic view of Indian relations. The events around south China sea and the response to Japanese take over of a Chinese fishing boat led to a hardening of stance by neutral countries in ASEAN and NE Asia.

IDSAIndia IDSA,
It emerged from IDSA-CICIR bilateral dialogue that India must engage the military of Pakistan to make the peace-process effective
Â»
IDSAIndia IDSA,
It emerged from IDSA-CICIR bilateral dialogue that China and India should cooperate in Afghanistan

No no, China is no friend of India, and shall not be
1) if it's at the cost of cession of territory. in 1950's in an attempt not to get isolated China was willing to compromise (like a 'swap'ï¼‰ but now the whole picture is different and people are well informed. It's politically suicidal if CCP (or whoever in power) gives away, say Tawang the birthplace of Tsangyang Gyatso the 6th Dalai Lama, one of greatest poets, needless to mention China (Tibet) has every record to claim the land. Moreover India requests not only S. Tibet but also Aksai Chin, too dear a price to be afforded for a 'peace' on the southern flank.

2) if "befriending" India endangers Sino-Pak alliance. In the world China probably has only 2 allies not bound by ideology but by geopolitics. PK is also China's bridge to the Muslim world as well. Instead China shall keep on growing clout in other southern bloc countries like BD, NP, SL and MY who have neither territorial disputes nor 'historical baggage' with China.

Besides once HH Dalai Lama is no more, it'll be dangerous for India but not China. All those cat fights will happen in India as most sects/factions have been implanted in India. It'd be many many years before they sort out their mess like "incarnation" etc. etc.. Sooner or later India will find it a dilemma like Iraq (and US) was in face of MEK - Iranian dissident org.. Meantime economically China is pumping huge money into Tibet to improve infrastructures and living standard, and Lhasa salary level (incl. a "hardship allowance"ï¼‰ is higher than many "heartland" cities. Religiously the young Panchen Lama, whose sect is pro-China for generations as a rival to Dalai within Gelug, is ascending as a 'spiritual leader'.

Below marks a "paradise lost" for former rulers of Tibet, now in exile --

Tibet plans to celebrate 60th anniversary of peaceful liberation
Preparations for the anniversary celebration started last October following the general program. An evening gala with stage performances and new style Tibetan opera will be put on while carnival floats, parade and other activities are also being planned.
"This year marks the 60th anniversary of the peaceful liberation of Tibet. Therefore, various cultural activities are now being prepared to celebrate this grand event," said Nyima Tsering, director-general of the Culture Department of Tibet Autonomous Region.
"We'll take advantage of the two occasions-the founding of the Communist Party's 90th anniversary and the 60th anniversary of the peaceful liberation of Tibet, to promote public cultural activities for the masses of region," Nyima Tsering said.

1) if it's at the cost of cession of territory. in 1950's in an attempt not to get isolated China was willing to compromise (like a 'swap'ï¼‰ but now the whole picture is different and people are well informed. It's politically suicidal if CCP (or even KMT) give away for example Tawang the birthplace of Tsangyang Gyatso the 6th Dalai Lama, one of greatest poets, needless to mention China (Tibet) has every record to claim the land. Moreover India requests not only S. Tibet but also Aksai Chin, too dear a price to be afforded for a 'peace' on the southern flank. .

Click to expand...

You have no records to claim any land. China's claims to Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin are about as strong as Mongolia's. In fact, Mongolia probably has a stronger claim.

2) if "befriending" India endangers Sino-Pak alliance. In the world China probably has only 2 allies not bound by ideology but by geopolitics. PK is also China's bridge to the Muslim world as well. Instead China shall continue befriending southern bloc countries like BD, NP, SL and MY who have neither territorial disputes nor 'historical baggage' with China.

Click to expand...

Your "time-tested" ally will be thrown into the dustbin of time this half-century. I wonder what China will do when its "time-tested ally" no longer exists?

Jawaharlal Nehru will be rolling in the ashes that has merged with the soil.

One should not take the Chinese at face value.

Peaceful Rise fooled all and so China disarmed all and became what it is today, so much so, it is flexing its muscle and giving the US nightmares of regret!

The only thing the US has been successful is assist China on its way from poverty into the clutches of capitalism and greed.

Greed will herald the end of the CCP because the Chinese will, at some point in time, demand that the charade of Communism and its control be removed and real capitalism brought in without CCP patronage being a criterion. But that is still some time to come.

Aksai Chin is Indian and so is the Shaksgam Valley (which has been illegally donated by Pakistan to China, when in the first place it was not Pakistan's).

Click to expand...

There is no need to go back hundreds years to find out who owned what. I believe both sides can come up with thousands of reasons to prove they were the owner at the time. So, Ray, don't waste your time.

It is true that talks will not solve the problem, more so, since China has abandoned its 'Peaceful Rise' and transmogrified it in to an 'Aggressive Rise' where she is threaten all countries, which in her opinion, is preventing her acquiring territory and seas at will.

The only way India can have the return of the territories is through promoting insurrection within the Autonomous Regions and if India is clever enough, to allow the US to do the same instead of India taking the lead role.

Click to expand...

Well, my friend, US may want these territories out of China's control, but it doesn't mean they would give to India.

It is feasible to encourage insurrection since ethnically the Uyghurs and the Tibetans are not Hans and are more so, the Uyghurs being Muslims, will not be amenable to having their religion trampled upon.

It is correct that any change from the status quo will be of serious disadvantage to China, not only strategically, but also losing out on hydropower, oil and minerals, all of which is at a premium for the development of China.

Click to expand...

Any Change will be desadvantage to China? Did you include the change of China grabs more? Or you already make the conclusion now? Now I know how india lost in 1962.

One has to understand the Muslim mindset. It is not very peaceful or subservient when it comes to their religion. That is why it is important for China to keep Pakistan at bay with sops and calls of eternal friendship. However, the same is not applicable with others. China is aware of it and that is why it will be observed that China is on a powerdrive to keep all Muslim countries in good cheer.

Click to expand...

It looks like Chinese understands muslim mindset better than indian: they can keep their oil vendor of middle east in a good mood and get themselves a muslim army on the other side of indian border.

While the US may not be able to make headway in Iran, there is no obstacles to make headway in Xinjaing since it will not be against the Muslim cause and no Muslim nation will not want the 'liberation' of another set of Muslims from the stranglehold of kaffirs.

Click to expand...

And what make you think the US is willing to do that? They have been in Afg for almost 10 years. What stops their matching?

The Tibetan on the other hand is restrained by the Dalai Lama and the Indian Govt. However, the younger generation are very aggressive and are conscious of their rights. The manner in which they reacted to the alleged foreign exchange loot of the Karmapa is indicative of their restiveness and assertive spirit.

Click to expand...

Karmapa? You must be joking me! That is a big shame to Indian gov: a reckless move and unable to prove any allegation.

There is no need to go back hundreds years to find out who owned what. I believe both sides can come up with thousands of reasons to prove they were the owner at the time. So, Ray, don't waste your time.

Click to expand...

If life is a waste of time and time is a waste of life, lets all get wasted and have the time of our lives.

The same applies to India, my friend.

Click to expand...

No, it has not applied to India as yet.

It has been too transparent.

It is time that the Govt of India wakes up and learn a few tricks from the Chinese.

Well, my friend, US may want these territories out of China's control, but it doesn't mean they would give to India.

Click to expand...

India does not want Tibet. I don't know from where you get that idea.

If it did, then India should have done it in the 1950s, when the US wanted India to do it and when China was busy fighting the UN in Korea with it total military might committed there.

At best, India would prefer that Tibet belongs to Tibetans and its acts as a buffer between India and China. Maybe then our relationship would be excellent since none would have to bother about each others intentions.

So do those minorities in India.

Click to expand...

Our minorities rights are not trampled under any circumstances.

Maybe this will help:

Madani is one of the head of the Deoband, he is a Member of Parliament and very aggressive when defending the rights of the Muslim and very anti Govt.

Any Change will be desadvantage to China? Did you include the change of China grabs more? Or you already make the conclusion now? Now I know how india lost in 1962.

Click to expand...

It would be a daydream that China will grab more.

Isn't the smack that the small island of Japan gave China over the islands not an adequate reminder that these days it is not the 1950s and 60s?

One must smell the coffee, before one lets jingoism seize his senses.

And conveniently your forget when India showed China her place at Nathu La, Chola and Sumdorong Chu.

Selective amnesia?

The power always arise at the expense of some others.

Click to expand...

True.

But one is thunderstruck at the Chinese doublespeak of 'Peace' and then backstab!!

You already did that. And result was not a success so far. You can continue to do it. Just don't cry as a victim when other side use the same strategy.

Click to expand...

India has done nothing to upset the balance with Uyghurs or Tibetan.

In fact, India has no connection with the Uyghurs. Their leader is in the US.

And Dalai Lama has been restrained beyond all expectations.

If your repression of ethnic minorities cause you problems, then don't go fishing for excuses to cover up your repression.

It looks like Chinese understands muslim mindset better than indian: they can keep their oil vendor of middle east in a good mood and get themselves a muslim army on the other side of indian border.

Click to expand...

Pakistan is up to the highest bidder.

It is a question of cash and carry and nothing to do with Muslim.

Note the way they are allowing their own people to be bombed to Kingdom Come by the US. Money talks there.

They are so cash strapped that they will sell their soul to the Devil if need be or are already doing so. Note how they pretend to be the Champions of Islam and yet they are silent over the Uyghur issue? Why? Because China keeps them militarily afloat as also gives them a psychological safety belt, even when history shows that in a war, China has given pious platitudes in torrents and nothing beyond

And what make you think the US is willing to do that? They have been in Afg for almost 10 years. What stops their matching?

Click to expand...

US is not only willing to it, but is already at it. Rebiya Kadeer is well ensconced in the US. And she is not there to see the Grand Canyon either!

What exactly do you mean They have been in Afg for almost 10 years. What stops their matching? Match what?

Have you noticed the silence among the newspapers & TVs in thoese muslim nations in 2009 uyghurs riot?

Click to expand...

Checked the Turkish papers?

Muslim nations have been muted? Guess what would happen if they responded beyond the bleat? The free goodies, the soft loans and the cheap goods that sustain them would vanish. Their Govts are pragmatic since they have to run their countries in their autocratic manner, even if their people are hostile.

However, check the Middle East now. The scenario is changing.

Karmapa? You must be joking me! That is a big shame to Indian gov: a reckless move and unable to prove any allegation.

Click to expand...

Nothing to be ashamed about. India is not China that it can ruthlessly smash under the boot popular sentiments.

It was a political move to low key the issue since there are many Buddhists in India as also a large segment of the population are very supportive of the Tibetan cause.

The pro Chinese monasteries have been closed down and he is still not allowed to go to Sikkim!! Quid pro quo!

The Tibetans would have bayed for blood and may have moved into Tibet causing problems for the Indo China relationship, giving grounds to people like you that India is fomenting problems for China in Tibet.

Well, Chinese is willing to blood out tibetens if it turns ungly. Does india want to shed its blood?

Click to expand...

One is aware that the Hans are ruthless and so of course, you will turn the Tsang po red with blood. Tell us something new.

If the push comes to shove, India will be more than willing to show China its rightful place.